pyunyh at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 11:44:26 UTC 2007
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:10:09PM +0900, To freebsd-current at FreeBSD.org wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:18:37PM +0900, To freebsd-current at FreeBSD.org wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > I've committed a fix for bus_dma(9) bug which resulted in poor Tx
> > performance on TSO enabled re(4) driver. With the fix and revised
> > re(4) I got more sane performance on re(4). Because there are too many
> > hardwares that rely on re(4) I'd like to hear any success or failure
> > reports before revised re(4) hits the tree.
> > For PCIe hardware users it would be great if you can submit
> > performance numbers for stock re(4) and revised one. The revised
> > re(4) can be found at the following URL.
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/re.HEAD.patch
> > Note, you need latest kernel to get correct performance numbers.
> I've fixed a bug which resulted in checksum offload bug and update the
> patch. It should have no ression.
> We're very close to code freeze and have too many consumers of re(4).
> Without users success report it would be impossible to commit the patch
> before branching 7. Since I don't have 8139C+ based ones, I'm also
> interested in how it works on 8139C+ hardwares.
I received few feedbacks on overhauled re(4).
Without this patch TSO would be unstable and you would get
"can't map defragmented mbuf" messages on console under heavy load.
If I couldn't get more feedbacks I'll disable TSO support before code
More information about the freebsd-current